ARW Jan. 12 Discussion on Cloning (Silver 20-27)

The Cloning of Adults
Silver introduces cases where adults may clone themselves. The main cases include infertile couples, homosexual (gay and lesbian) couples, fertile couples (but Silver feels they will have no desire to clone), and single persons such as Jennifer. Silver seems to suggest that the main advantage of adult cloning is that there is no need to get DNA from a "stranger". The infertile or homosexual couples or single persons can have children that are connected to their own DNA. Silver also mentions a survey saying that 6 to 7% of people are interested in cloning themselves, but he is not sure whether people were answering seriously.

Jennifer and Rachel
Silver tells a fictional story of a single woman who might use cloning in an acceptable way. Jennifer clones herself outside of the USA and has a daughter named Rachel because she wants to be single, but have a child. Jennifer has enough money and can take care of Rachel with no problem. Is there anything wrong with what Jennifer has done? Is Rachel harmed in some way? Rachel will look like her mother Jennifer (as a twin sister), but Rachel will be a normal little girl. If society does not have any prejudice and accepts cloning, there will be no need to keep Rachel's cloning a secret. Of course, the meaning of parents, grandparents and siblings will need to be reconsidered.

Is Cloning Wrong?
Silver introduces six arguments against cloning and tries to show they are not logical (this is called a "rebuttal" in debate language). Are his rebuttals logical? Also, has he included the strongest arguments against cloning or ignored some? Eugenics? Experimentation?

Argument 1-"identity": Clones such as Rachel will be harmed by not having a unique genetic identity (Callahan).
Silver's rebuttal: Identical twins are born every day.

Argument 2-"knowledge of future condition": Cloning children cannot help knowing their future possibilities for example, their appearance, disease and so on.
Silver's rebuttal:Natural conceived children can also predict some future possibilities because of genes from parents. In addition, people can see their genetic future with modern technology.

Argument 3-"unrealistic expectations": Clones such as Rachel will be harmed by having to live up to her mother's unrealistic expectations.
Silver's rebuttal: Many other parents also expect their children to accomplish what the parents couldn't accomplish in their own.

Argument 4-"tampering with human embryos":
Silver's rebuttal: Cloning does not kill embryos. It only uses an unfertilized egg and the nucleus of an adult cell. (Of course, "cloning research" will probably need to experiment with and destroy many human embryos, but Silver does not mention that. )

Argument 5-Making life through cloning is invading "God's domain":
Silver's rebuttal: That's a religious question, so science cannot answer that. If people want to believe that, it is their free choice.

Argument 6-Cloning will harm society because it will "restrict evolution," which needs the mixing of genes from male and female:
Silver's rebuttal: On practical grounds, not many people will clone, so the effect on evolution will be negligible. The idea that everyone will become the same is absurd. On theoretical grounds, the progress of evolution is not definable. How humans will develop is unpredictable and evolution cannot be "restricted."

Another idea Silver argues is that governments and borders will not be able to stop cloning. The needs of people and supply and demand in the international market place will determine when and where cloning will occur.

Reactions/Discussion Questions:

1. My main reaction is that Silver has neglected what is probably the strongest argument against human cloning. This is the fact that, if the world moves ahead with cloning, some children will need to be experiments in the early stages of cloning research. They will be experiments not only biologically, but also socially. We do not know what will happen. I think it is reasonable to argue that NO child should be born as an experiment. Of course, I have to admit that in vitro fertilization lead to benefits and some experimentation may have occurred there. However, that was essentially replicating a natural process in a lab, while cloning does not occur naturally. Until the technology is safe and society is ready, no child should be cloned. However, to be ready, experiments will be needed, and these experiments should not occur.
   
   
2. My other main reaction is that Silver has ignored the eugenics argument against human cloning. The eugenics argument is that cloning a human essentially means choosing what kind of human will be born. In natural reproduction, humans do not know what kind of child will come, and genetically disabled children are possible by chance. That is the way it should be. Although disabled persons have difficulty, a society in which imperfect people are born and accepted as part of nature seems more humane than a society in which DNA is selected for passing on to the next generation.
   
   
3. Discussion Question: What is the strongest argument against human reproductive cloning? I think none of the arguments that Silver has presented are really strong, and he easily refutes them, more or less persuasively. I think the two points I presented above--experimentation and eugenics--are stronger.
   
   
4. Discussion Question: What is your opinion about what Jennifer has done? Is it morally acceptable? Personally, I think it is possible that Rachel will be as happy as any child. She will look like her mother, but nobody knows she is cloned. If Jennifer is a reasonable person, she will accept that Rachel has the same DNA as she does, but is a completely different human and will be different from herself, just like twins are different. Will Jennifer be harmed in any way? I don't think so.